Why allow no trade contracts

[Atas2000]

If the league wants true parity why do they allow no trade and limited trade contracts? When a team is willing to pay what it takes to get a player, its frustrating to lose him to a no trade. Would it be the leagues right to not allow them?

Because players are sentient beings, have family, kids. And they are employees, not slaves.

 

[Iapyi]

overall NTCs and NMCs hurt the game.

 

[Spazkat]

Let me guess. The people arguing against NTC/NMC's are fans of teams that suck and/or are located in places that are generally pretty low on the "places I would like to move to" scale right?

 

[Iapyi]

Let me guess. The people arguing against NTC/NMC's are fans of teams that suck and/or are located in places that are generally pretty low on the "places I would like to move to" scale right?

i know in my case your guess is wrong. can't speak for others.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

OP makes no sense. How do NTCs hurt small market teams? If anything they help them by evening the playing field--a team that may not be able to afford a player otherwise can offer them a NTC to sign them/keep them. Jim Rutherford was notorious for handing out NTCs to pretty much everybody in Carolina (including Niclas Wallin, Frantisek Kaberle ) to keep costs down.

 

[Seanaconda]

Because that's not how parity is intended to work. You might as well just line the players up every year and have GMs pick them in a giant schoolyard style draft.

Colorado avalanche choose McDavid
Vancouver chooses Sydney Crosby
Vegas chooses Erik Karlsson

They should toss the sticks in center ice at the beginning of every season and decide teams that way

 

[Seanaconda]

But anyways ntc/nmc are a good way to lower a cap hit and players want them because they don't wanna move their families around.

It's only weird when a gm overpays and gives a player one.

 

[Matty Sundin]

I know people saying it lowers cap hit but it seems like a lot players get overpaid regardless if they have one or not.

 

[Kent Nilsson]

Because players are sentient beings, have family, kids. And they are employees, not slaves.

But but muhh millions !!!!!11

 

[Not So Mighty]

It's almost as if contracts pertain to the lives and livelihoods of actual human beings who have people and places they love.

There are many answers OP, but this ^^^ is the most obvious and most important.

The NHL isn't a game. It's a business with real people. And the people at its core, the players, have a union and therefore have negotiated rights to protect themselves.

 

[joez86]

There are many answers OP, but this ^^^ is the most obvious and most important.

The NHL isn't a game. It's a business with real people. And the people at its core, the players, have a union and therefore have negotiated rights to protect themselves.

Unions are not necessary to protect anyone's rights, and I would say that typically they do more harm than good.

Nobody has a right to be employed.

No trade contracts exist because some players consider it valuable to have stability, and thus teams offer them in order to not have to offer to pay them as much money as they would otherwise have to in order to get the player to sign the contract.

 

[Kryten]

Unions are not necessary to protect anyone's rights, and I would say that typically they do more harm than good.

Nobody has a right to be employed.

No trade contracts exist because some players consider it valuable to have stability, and thus teams offer them in order to not have to offer to pay them as much money as they would otherwise have to in order to get the player to sign the contract.

You probably want guaranteed contracts taken away too Id bet. Whats the fascination with taking power away from millionaire players and giving power to billionaire owners

 

[Thenameless]

Because it's a business and owners saw it was something they could give players in order to get them to take less money. And players were willing to take them in exchange for less money because they have families.

This is essentially what it is.

Though, even a player without a family may want a say in where he goes in the future.

 

[JetsHomer]

Unions are good, capitalism is bad

 

[Rufus]

It's threads like these that remind me that there aren't people who don't look at professional athletes as humans like themselves. Athletes have every right to be able to decide how long they want to stay in one place.

 

[stepdad gaary]

When I have family? They are grown and gone. These guys are making millions of dollars from fans that for the most part don't have a lot and idolize them. I just don't feel sorry for a guy that doesn't want to play in a smaller market because they are not anonymous when they leave the rink. For the most part smaller citys are safer for raising families. Usually colder and higher taxed though.

im sorry you want your team to be able to trade for good players but players dont want to be traded all the time.

You seem to be going through some personal issues and are applying them to NHL contracts.

 

[Tasteless Beaver]

My only issue with NTC/NMCs, it's always the same cities on the lists.

 

[boredmale]

The league basically has to give the players something in order to get their cap and in the case of NTC/NMC causes the owners don't lose anything by having them(in terms of potential revenue)

 

[Not So Mighty]

Unions are not necessary to protect anyone's rights, and I would say that typically they do more harm than good.

Nobody has a right to be employed.

No trade contracts exist because some players consider it valuable to have stability, and thus teams offer them in order to not have to offer to pay them as much money as they would otherwise have to in order to get the player to sign the contract.

So I briefly mention the NHLPA has something to do with NMC/NTC clauses being an avenue in this league and you twist that to say that I'm some SJW for unions and that I believe all people have a right to employment.

OK.

For teams to offer those clauses, they have to first be legal by the NHL CBA. The CBA is negotiated by the NHLPA (see also: union) and the owners.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

It's a negotiated contract. And from a "labour law" it would difficult to outlaw rights that most other employees have.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

My only issue with NTC/NMCs, it's always the same cities on the lists.

LOL i feel you buddy.. i feel you

 

[Bubba88]

in other words:

should NTC/NMCs be allowed?

 

[Beville]

Okay let me know what happens when your boss wants to send you to the other side of the country, when your kids are sitting important exams etc...

Players with NTCs have fought hard to get the right to add stability and protection to their lives, being an athlete doesn't mean you aren't a human. The ones without are most likely the "young, free and single" type who are happy to go just about anywhere.

 

[Nightmare1000]

It's almost as if contracts pertain to the lives and livelihoods of actual human beings who have people and places they love.

Lmfao haha. That's awesome. Nobody wants to live in an RV all their career lol just kidding.

 

[Chet Manley]

From a fan pov, these clauses seem to hurt the amount of trades which is fun and interesting to watch. Players as cattle is more fun, fav team has a chance at building a pyramid.

But from a human perspective, those clauses are perfectly reasonable. The entire idea of being drafted and essentially owned by a team/location is pretty ridiculous in a society that values freedom and ownership of their personal capital. Players put in time and earn their freedom to decide but still have limits to what can be negotiated via collusion. They should at least get to command a little control over their future home and create stability in their life off-ice. Also, taking a homer wage should get you a home.

My only beef is that the clauses have a value for the player and team, but that value isn't reflected in the cap. The owners would have a hard time eliminating them from the CBA but could try to add an arbitrary percentage amount of the SPC to the cap in order to dissuade their popularity or create more parity. On the flip side, all UFA contracts could include a movement clause eliminating the unaccounted value. Owners do it to negotiate a clause that works for them and players do it for the greater good of all UFAs.